Daley v. Encore Grp. Of Prof'Ls, Llc

• Court: Nevada Supreme Court
• Decided: July 21, 2022
• Docket: 84745
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

GABRIEL J. DALEY, No. 84745 Appellant, fe ; LL ry ENCORE GROUP OF

PROFESSIONALS, LLC, JUL 2 1 2022

ELIZABETH A. BROWN Respondent. CLERK OF SYPREME COURT BY DEPUTY CLERK

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

VS.

This is an appeal from an order grating in part and denying in part a motion to enforce a settlement agreement. Highth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Veronica Barisich, Judge.

This appeal involves appellant’s ownership rights in respondent and appellant's termination. Respondent argues the parties reached a settlement during trial, and that appellant failed to conform to the terms. Appellant disputes the terms of the settlement. Respondent has moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of a final judgment and for sanctions for a frivolous appeal. NRAP 38. Appellant opposes the motion, and respondent has filed a reply.

An order granting a motion to enforce a settlement agreement is not independently appealable. See Valley Bank of Nev. v. Ginsburg, 110 Nev. 440, 445-46, 874 P.2d 729, 733-34 (1994). Appellant asserts in the docketing statement that the order is appealable as a final judgment. But the district court's order does not expressly dispose of the claims in the original complaint. A final judgment is "one that disposes of all the issues presented in the case, and leaves nothing for future consideration of the court, except for post-judgment issues," including attorney fees and costs. Lee v. GNLV Corp., 116 Nev. 424, 426, 996 P.2d 416, 417 (2000). This court

Svein Sune looks to the substance of the order or judgment rather than the label to Nevapa

ERS

(0) 147A oR - -A30l le

determine finality. Brown v. MHC Stagecoach, 129 Nev. 343, 345, 301 P.3d 850, 851 (2013) (an order granting a motion to enforce a settlement agreement is not a final judgment where it does not enter judgment in favor of a party or otherwise resolve the pending claims); Valley Bank, 110 Nev. at 446, 874 P.2d at 733 (concluding that a district court order approving a settlement agreement was interlocutory).

In his opposition to the motion to dismiss, appellant concedes the district court has not dismissed the case. Accordingly, the motion to

dismiss is granted. This court lacks jurisdiction and

ORDERS this appeal DISMISSED.!

jp hiece

ardesty Ah olin G , oa. Stiglich (A——— . J.

Herndon

ce: Hon. Veronica Barisich, District Judge Janet Trost, Settlement Judge Law Office of Timothy P. Thomas, LLC Law Office of Kent P. Woods LLC Eighth District Court Clerk

‘Respondent’s motion for sanctions and attorney fees and costs related to the appeal is denied. NRAP 38.

SuPREME CouRT oF NEVADA

(OV 19874 GRR 9